M Baranidharan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.10530 of 2026 M.Baranidharan ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Womens Police Station, Nannilam, Tiruvarur District.

Crime No.6 of 2026 ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Swami Subramanian For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police in respect of Crime No.6 of 2026 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 318(2), 318(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 147, 294, 417, 420 and 506 IPC) on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner and false implication in the case, seeks the indulgence of this Court. He would submit that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and that the earlier application was dismissed by this Court on 05.03.2026 in Crl.O.P.No.5695 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation by furnishing his samples for conducting DNA test. He would also submit that even as per the complaint, the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is consensual in nature. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. The case of the prosecution, as put forth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, is that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant, resulting in her becoming pregnant, and subsequently, when she insisted on marriage, the petitioner refused.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

2/6

5. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court finds that there is no specific allegation of forcible sexual assault as against the petitioner. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as custodial interrogation is not required at this stage, subject to certain conditions. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not, in any manner, communicate with the defacto complainant or her relatives, and shall co-operate in the investigation, including furnishing his samples for DNA analysis, if so required, upon appropriate application by the prosecution.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions that:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

3/6

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for suretyship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 06.30 a.m., until further orders; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

28.04.2026 skr 4/6

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman

2. The Inspector of Police, All Womens Police Station, Nannilam, Tiruvarur

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

skr Crl.O.P.No.10530 of 2026 28.04.2026 6/6